MANGTIN Vs. RAHIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), the appellants have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 5.11.93 passed by the First Additional District Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Appeal No.76-A/91, reversing the judgment & decree of dismissal of the civil suit dated 5.12.84 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.468A/84.

(2.) Present second appeal was admitted for consideration on 1.7.94 on the following substantial question of law:-

(3.) As per claim of respondent No.1 Rahi Bai, Rahi Bai has purchased the suit property bearing khasra No.720 area 1.38 hectare situated at village Tulsi P.H.No.111, district Raipur vide registered sale deed dated 15.4.1976 on payment of consideration of Rs.3000/- and obtained possession, name of respondent No.1 has been mutated vide order dated 16.3.79. The appellants have committed theft of the crop shown by respondent No.1, then respondent No.1 has lodged the F.I.R., she was dispossessed by the appellants in the year 1979. Then suit for possession has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 on 12.8.80. By filing written statement the present appellants had denied the adverse allegation and have specifically pleaded that appellant No.1 has taken loan for her family on 15.4.76 and has executed one document in the shape of sale deed for security of loan. Respondent No.1 was in possession with the connivance of revenue officer, she was succeeded in mutation of her name and she has also lodged report against the appellants. Appellant No.1 was not competent to alienate the property of minors without permission of the District Judge. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.1 has executed sale deed in favour of Ajit, predecessor-in-title of respondents No.2(i) to 2(vi), therefore, he was impleaded as a party. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Third Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur has dismissed the suit for possession and held that transaction between the parties was loan transaction. Same was challenged before the lower appellate Court and vide judgment & decree impugned the lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment & decree passed by the Third Civil Judge Class-II and decreed the suit for possession in favour of the respondents.